Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffTyler Date: Mar 24, 2005 4:55am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploading Flac vs Shn

also, many are starting to consider .shn a 'dead format' ... as the writer and developer of the file format hasn't updated his webpage since 2001 (?). Compared with .flac which is an open-source, constantly improving lossless file compression method. I was a diehard .shn person for many years, always compressing my shows to .shn but recently I switch over to .flacs as they are just as easy to make but seem to have more positive brownie points to their name. Not only are they smaller (slightly but noticably) there are portable devices that support them (none support .shn), many 'pay for download' services provide flacs (DMB, livephish,etc..) and it also allows for header meta-data to be entered,much like the mp3's id3 tags.. it seems to be the best way to go. go flac!

also remember that you should make and include an md5 with your flac filesets. just because it is flac doesn't mean you shouldn't do an md5 (this is a common misunderstnading in trading circles).

tyler

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: Mar 24, 2005 5:19am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploading Flac vs Shn

or you could do a flac fingerprint :-)
speaking of which..

flac fingerprint (ffp) should be added as a file type when one gets to choose to describe your files during the import process ;-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Mar 24, 2005 6:05am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploading Flac vs Shn

or you could do a flac fingerprint

Ffps are good to include in your fileset here too, but should not be considered as a replacement for the whole-file md5s. The latter are very handy to do the whole-file corruption checks after ftp upload to this archive.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: xtifr Date: Mar 24, 2005 9:56am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploading Flac vs Shn

Mostly because the archive isn't set up to check fingerprints at this time. The advantage of the fingerprint over the whole-file MD5 is that the former isn't affected by changes to the metadata in the flac files.

Oh, speaking of which, there's another advantage of flac over shn: support for metadata (like artist, track name, etc.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffBrad Leblanc Date: Mar 24, 2005 10:06am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Uploading Flac vs Shn

also, many are starting to consider .shn a 'dead format' ... as the writer and developer of the file format hasn't updated his webpage since 2001 (?).

I think you're confusing SHN with the mkwACT software. Michael K Weise wrote the mkwACT toolkit which uses SHN. Softsound created the SHN format.

Update: I see that Softsound hasn't updated the Shorten 'section' of their website, maybe that's what you mean Tyler. 3.6.0 has been the latest release of that software for years. Yeah, maybe it is dying.

This post was modified by Brad Leblanc on 2005-03-24 18:06:54